RAMAKANT GAUTAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner ex-employee of the establishment of District and Sessions Judge, Satna, has assailed the order passed by the disciplinary authority, dismissing him from the service from the post of Executing Clerk and by subsequent orders dated 13/08/2008 and 16/07/2009 appeals preferred by the petitioner have been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, giving rise to filing of this petition are, the petitioner who was working in the establishment of District and Sessions Judge, Satna on the post of executing clerk at the relevant time was assigned the duty in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satna. The petitioner was a reader assigned to look after the cases of jurisdiction. A list was made available to the petitioner by the Presiding Officer of the Court indicating that certain cases were to be withdrawn by the State Government and for the said purposes the application made by the State Government/prosecuting agency permission to withdraw the prosecution was granted. The petitioner was called upon to prepare the disposal of such cases and deposit the same in the record room of the Court. In one of the cases, after the type written order sheet dated 06/09/2005 certain interpolation were done by the petitioner and it was recorded as if the case was withdrawn and the same was to be deposited in the record room. However, later on the fact came to the notice of the authorities that such a case registered against one of the accused person was not to be closed withdrawn by the State Government as the evidence was available against accused person for commission of such offence and therefore such a prayer made by the State Government/ prosecution agency was rejected. However, only because the order sheet was so written, duly signed by the Presiding Officer, the case was deposited in the record room.

(3.) When these facts came to the notice of the authorities, an inquiry was directed and the Forth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Satna was ordered to conduct a preliminary inquiry. The said Judge conducted a preliminary inquiry submitted a report before the District and Sessions Judge, Satna that infact the Presiding Officer of the Court had refused the prayer of the prosecuting agency to grant permission to withdraw the prosecution in the said case but only because of interpolation made in the order sheet by the petitioner in his own hand writing, such a case was deposited in the record room as disposed of whereas the trial of the case was to be conducted. After receipt of this report the District and Sessions Judge, Satna issued him a charge sheet on 04/01/2008. Three charges were leveled against the petitioner which are translated in English by the Court for the purposes of convenience in following manner: